There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

Actually, I have a secular argument against gay marriage. I don't think that we should deny homosexuals equal benefits, which is why I support civil unions, but I believe you can give them equal rights without redefining an institution that for thousands of years and in just about every culture has been defined as between a man and a woman. For me, it's not a civil rights issue, it's a language issue. Give them the rights, but don't call it "marriage."

Historically, marriage was between a man and as many women as he could collect. Are you now pro polygamy? Because that's the historical tradition. And the Biblical one as well.

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

Actually, I have a secular argument against gay marriage. I don't think that we should deny homosexuals equal benefits, which is why I support civil unions, but I believe you can give them equal rights without redefining an institution that for thousands of years and in just about every culture has been defined as between a man and a woman. For me, it's not a civil rights issue, it's a language issue. Give them the rights, but don't call it "marriage."

Historically, marriage was between a man and as many women as he could collect. Are you now pro polygamy? Because that's the historical tradition. And the Biblical one as well.

This revisionism is sad... but predictable.

Logged

Dogma is a comfortable thing, it saves you from thought - Sir Robert Menzies

There is no secular argument of substance against legalizing gay marriage. Even if I didn't have my own personal reasons for supporting it, there is no way I could be opposed. Of course I am in favor.

Actually, I have a secular argument against gay marriage. I don't think that we should deny homosexuals equal benefits, which is why I support civil unions, but I believe you can give them equal rights without redefining an institution that for thousands of years and in just about every culture has been defined as between a man and a woman. For me, it's not a civil rights issue, it's a language issue. Give them the rights, but don't call it "marriage."

Historically, marriage was between a man and as many women as he could collect. Are you now pro polygamy? Because that's the historical tradition. And the Biblical one as well.

Whether he's pro-polygamy is actually irrelevant, since he would probably refer to such relationships as "marriages" even if he opposes them. The law typically refers to such unions as marriages even while it criminalizes them. Therefore the term is clearly a matter of language rather then legal/moral acceptance.

I believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of heterozexual couples, but don't redefine marriage. For me, it's a language issue, not an equality one. Of course they should have equal benefits, but call it a "civil union".

Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower

There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.

I believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of heterozexual couples, but don't redefine marriage. For me, it's a language issue, not an equality one. Of course they should have equal benefits, but call it a "civil union".

Then it isn't equal. 'Seperate but equal' isn't genuine equality. I do find it out how defensive people get over marriage. 1 in 3 marriages in the western world ends in divorce; it's THE most annulled legal contract people can enter into. Not only that, people can enter into it twice, three, four, five times in their lives. People can get married for money, for a passport, for an inheritance, for fame or for a magazine spread. People get married under coercion, or under force.

As an exclusive plaything for straight couples on the whole it's been cheapened. Individual marriages though make it all worthwhile. The idea that the marriage of two men or two women is going to threaten or 'redefine' marriage is absurd. It get's 'redefined' every day the moment someone enters into it for a dishonest reason or runs away from it for no reason at all.

How is Kim Kardashians 72 day marriage more 'worthy' because she was a woman and the other person was a man than say Michael Stark and Michael Leshner who married in Canada in 2003 after 22 years together?

I believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of heterozexual couples, but don't redefine marriage. For me, it's a language issue, not an equality one. Of course they should have equal benefits, but call it a "civil union".

1.yes i support civil unions2.im in favor of gay adoption rights and hospital visitation rights

We get that you're against gay marriage, but why? Why do you folks think there's a compelling enough reason to deny gay folks the access to a word of considerable personal importance -- at the governmental level, at that?

I'm sorry to be pushy, but this is an issue where the opposing arguments just seem so obviously awful to me. It's one of the only issues.

« Last Edit: October 06, 2012, 02:11:13 am by Grad Students are the Worst »

I believe that homosexuals should have all the rights of heterozexual couples, but don't redefine marriage. For me, it's a language issue, not an equality one. Of course they should have equal benefits, but call it a "civil union".

Then it isn't equal. 'Seperate but equal' isn't genuine equality. I do find it out how defensive people get over marriage. 1 in 3 marriages in the western world ends in divorce; it's THE most annulled legal contract people can enter into. Not only that, people can enter into it twice, three, four, five times in their lives. People can get married for money, for a passport, for an inheritance, for fame or for a magazine spread. People get married under coercion, or under force.

As an exclusive plaything for straight couples on the whole it's been cheapened. Individual marriages though make it all worthwhile. The idea that the marriage of two men or two women is going to threaten or 'redefine' marriage is absurd. It get's 'redefined' every day the moment someone enters into it for a dishonest reason or runs away from it for no reason at all.

How is Kim Kardashians 72 day marriage more 'worthy' because she was a woman and the other person was a man than say Michael Stark and Michael Leshner who married in Canada in 2003 after 22 years together?

It's equal in everything except name.

Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower

There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.

If anything, I think the equality in everything but name is even more insulting. It's like, "Hey, you've proven you meet the minimum threshhold for there to be a societal interest in giving you equal rights to heterosexual couples...but we're going to make sure you'e discriminated against anyway."

If anything, I think the equality in everything but name is even more insulting. It's like, "Hey, you've proven you meet the minimum threshhold for there to be a societal interest in giving you equal rights to heterosexual couples...but we're going to make sure you'e discriminated against anyway."

It's not meant to be discriminatory. It's giving them equal rights without redefining a religious term.

Logged

Quote from: Dwight D. Eisenhower

There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence, and energy of her citizens cannot cure.

If anything, I think the equality in everything but name is even more insulting. It's like, "Hey, you've proven you meet the minimum threshhold for there to be a societal interest in giving you equal rights to heterosexual couples...but we're going to make sure you'e discriminated against anyway."

It's not meant to be discriminatory. It's giving them equal rights without redefining a religious term.

The state is not religious, and marriage is not exclusively a religious term. Churches may define it as they wish , of course.

If anything, I think the equality in everything but name is even more insulting. It's like, "Hey, you've proven you meet the minimum threshhold for there to be a societal interest in giving you equal rights to heterosexual couples...but we're going to make sure you'e discriminated against anyway."

It's not meant to be discriminatory. It's giving them equal rights without redefining a religious term.

Marriage is not a religious term. No Communist state, no matter how militantly Atheist or Totalitarian, no matter what other traditional social structures they sought to uproot, ever attempted to abolish marriage.